tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post8854532659048494805..comments2023-10-31T15:54:05.715+03:00Comments on Naeem's Blog: Gordon Brown: Don't say terrorists are MuslimsNaeem:http://www.blogger.com/profile/15397380149160556040noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-30855403394341221972007-07-08T05:02:00.000+03:002007-07-08T05:02:00.000+03:00Amy,"Didn't a "tough stance" on terrorism just bre...Amy,<BR/><BR/>"Didn't a "tough stance" on terrorism just breed more terrorism?"<BR/><BR/>Does a tough stance on crime breed more crime? I think the underlying causes to the problem are lot more complex than the mis-steps taken by Bush/Blair. Clearly, their goof-ups didn't help, but let us also not oversimplify our analysis of the problem.Naeem:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15397380149160556040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-3923343922728853982007-07-07T23:00:00.000+03:002007-07-07T23:00:00.000+03:00Didn't a "tough stance" on terrorism just breed mo...Didn't a "tough stance" on terrorism just breed more terrorism?Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15177578450022894894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-46964392266263008812007-07-07T17:57:00.000+03:002007-07-07T17:57:00.000+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Naeem:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15397380149160556040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-49471589833310194972007-07-07T17:54:00.000+03:002007-07-07T17:54:00.000+03:00AA- Radiant Light, Thanks for your insight. Do UK...AA- Radiant Light, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your insight. Do UK Muslims have that much say in politics to force Brown and Co. to make such a drastic move? Are the impending elections seen to be so close that he needs to pander to the Muslim vote?<BR/><BR/>It seems that such a move would alienate him from those that believe a tough stance on terrorism is needed, don't you think?Naeem:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15397380149160556040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-77467087463615098802007-07-07T10:47:00.000+03:002007-07-07T10:47:00.000+03:00AssalamualaykumVery good points sister!As a reside...Assalamualaykum<BR/><BR/>Very good points sister!<BR/><BR/>As a resident of the UK, (In all my own personal opinion). Brown did this because he knew that Blair lost ALOT of brownie points with the Muslims, thus the Muslims voted anyone besides Blair and as national elections should be coming up soon ... need I say more.<BR/><BR/>But we can always be optimistic and say maybe one PM is actually on the side of the Muslims.<BR/><BR/>Ma'assalamRadiant Lighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03242346927200550695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-10920093657372068392007-07-07T07:47:00.000+03:002007-07-07T07:47:00.000+03:00Wasalaam, and thanks.I got something interesting i...Wasalaam, and thanks.<BR/><BR/>I got something interesting in my email today I thought was somewhat relevant to this discussion. It quoted some of a Washington Post article by Zbigniew Brezinski (sp?) <BR/><BR/>Basically he was saying that the "war on terror" was creating a "culture of fear," essentially doing more damage than 9/11 or any real terrorism. That ties in to the idea that people are just afraid, and I think pointing out religion naturally ties the religion to the "evil" the world perceives. <BR/><BR/>So if they stop calling the terrorists, what are they going to call them? I just wonder. I think it's good, turning politics from fear-based to hope-based. That and making a conscious decision to stop smearing 20% of the global population as terrorists. <BR/><BR/>I should admit, though, that I doubt it will work. Hope I'm wrong. :-) Maybe he's trying to warm up to Muslims, maybe he's trying to add a new label to the mix in defining 'good' and 'bad.' Who knows?Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15177578450022894894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-46050236762407490312007-07-06T21:23:00.000+03:002007-07-06T21:23:00.000+03:00Salaam Amy,What you said is absolutely correct...I...Salaam Amy,<BR/><BR/>What you said is absolutely correct...I especially liked your concluding remarks: "Then they couldn't say they were winning the war, and they would be obligated to start relieving poverty instead of creating it, and discouraging drug use instead ot perpetuating it."<BR/><BR/>Preach sista!! :-)<BR/><BR/>And it is because you are right that I am very impressed with (and even a bit suspecting of) Brown's proclamation against the usage of 'war on terror'.<BR/><BR/>Is this a shift in their policy? I strongly doubt that, so why is he taking this (principled) stance??Naeem:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15397380149160556040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268156244556916801.post-70219594716392908072007-07-06T19:28:00.000+03:002007-07-06T19:28:00.000+03:00The US is "at war" with all kinds of things. War o...The US is "at war" with all kinds of things. War on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror. Yawn. We use the word "war" to get people's attention, motivate them. Let us then ponder the suitability of the term <I>war-mongering</I>. <BR/><BR/>But this week's Newsweek asks the question, Are we winning the war with Radical Islam? <BR/><BR/>Hold up...<BR/><BR/>We are at war with radical Islam? What is radical Islam? Is it different than just "Islam?" Depending on what politician you ask, it would be "fundamentalist Islam" or "extreme Islam" or "Islamism" or even... snicker... "Wahhabi Islam." <BR/><BR/>The funny thing was that according to Newsweek, the answer was yes! Are we merely battling semantics or is something more sinister at work here? When will people realize that being at war with something only means two sides lose. Going to war, declaring war on anything, drugs, poverty, terror, or even gambling, if it's physical or metaphorical, is nothing these days but an attempt to polarize people against a clearly identified "enemy." <BR/><BR/>If they didn't keep calling those terrorists Muslims, they couldn't keep pretending Muslims are the enemy! And it wouldn't make a lot of sense to be at war then... would it? Then they couldn't say they were winning the war, and they would be obligated to start relieving poverty instead of creating it, and discouraging drug use instead ot perpetuating it. <BR/><BR/>/rantAmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15177578450022894894noreply@blogger.com